Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tom - You're right. I was over-reacting - just a tad..;-) My apologies. As a starving student myself many years ago I used worse than that on occasion. Cheers B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Tom Finnegan Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:11 PM To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux Geez B. D., I think you might be overreacting just a tad. I was just saying that I was surprised how decent the performance was for such a cheap throwaway lense, I was not waxing eloquent. I was merely trying to describe it's performance to those that might be interested. Yes it is truly crappy at f16/22, but from f4 to f11 it is quite good, and while wider open it does get a bit soft and low contrast it is still quite useable. Note that I said it is 'useable', not 'stellar', or 'crappy'. If I was a starving student I wouldn't hesitate to use it. If I was a professional photojournalist I wouldn't consider it for a second. I bought the 50/1.5 and the 85/2 Jupiter lenses, each for $75, simply so that I could see in practice which of the two focal lengths worked for me on the M. For the previous ten years I had used only the 35/1.4 (pre-asph). After playing with the two I decided I really liked the 50 but wasn't so sure of the 85/90. So, after slowly saving up my money, I bought a 50/1.4 Summilux from the honorable Dr. Yao for an excellent price. I will probably keep the 50/1.5 for occasional use on a IIIf. I'll post some example pictures tomorrow on the MSN site. Tom Finnegan Seattle ___________________________________ Come on, guys...Tom, what you have just described is a truly crappy lens...."Stopped down to f16/22 everything goes quite blurry and isn't really useable unless you like pictures with an extreme depth-of-blur." "Wide open it gets pretty soft and low contrast." Can you imagine how everyone would react if Leica produced a lens like that? Or how everyone would be laughing their Leica caps off if a new Nikon or Canon lens got a review like that. Okay, it's incredibly cheap. But that's because it's a lousy lens that only gives a decent performance in the mid-range...which means that it isn't an f 1.5 to f 16 lens, it's an f8 to f 11 lens. And I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't save money on older lenses or non-Leica brands lenses....Only that it doesn't make sense to wax eloquent over a lousy lens. B. D.